WORSHIP AND PRAYER

 Catholics believe that it is ok, and even beneficial, to pray to “saints,” i.e., those who have lived exemplary and honorable lives on earth, but are now in Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2683).  Likewise, they believe that it is very profitable to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (CCC #2769).  They also believe that it is ok to pray to angels (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol.11, p. 673).  However, Protestants seem to have a problem with all this.  But Catholics may wonder why.  After all, we need all the help we can get when it comes to prayer, right?

Well, the problem is our understanding of the similarities and differences between worship and prayer in Scripture.  We Protestants contend that 1) prayer is actually a form of worship and 2) therefore, only God should receive prayer.  We believe that prayer to anyone or anything else is idolatry and we should have nothing to do with this sin:

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” (1 Corinthians 10:14)  

Unfortunately, Catholics have a different understanding of worship and prayer than that which is in the Bible.

Inseparable

There are many different words for “worship” in the Bible.  But there is nothing in the context of any of these passages where the idea of prayer is expected to be divorced or detached from any form of worship.  Worship is not only an external action you do, but it is also an attitude.

Obviously, God can be worshipped in many ways – in your relationships, your job, your praise and singing, your finances, your good works, in all aspects of your life.  But an attitude of prayer is always connected to proper forms of worship.  Prayer should never be reduced to mean mere “conversation,” or the act of simply “asking” for something, as many Catholics argue.  But to divorce worship from prayer is to destroy the very essence of both terms!  There is certainly an “overlap” between the two.

Invariably, the term “pray” or “prayer” in Scripture is automatically assumed by its authors to be an act of worship.  Proper prayer is only and always directed toward God.  Please let this sink in.  There are NO examples in Holy Writ of acceptable prayer to ANYONE other than God:

“Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” (Psalm 73:25).

Now, please understand that prayer and worship are not the same things, but are vitally dependent on each other.  On the one hand, true prayer depends on worship, since your prayer to God is useless apart from an attitude of worship (Matthew 15:8).  As I said just above, if there is no worship involved, praying would be just “conversation” or “asking.”  On the other hand, true worship depends on a prayerful attitude.  After all, who can say that they are exercising true worship apart from communing with God?

Thus, prayer and worship are distinct, but inseparable. 

“I Pray Thee…”?

There are multiple arguments from Catholics for praying to Mary and the saints.  One such argument is by Catholic apologist Tim Staples, who wrote an article attempting to justify this type of prayer. 

See his article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-prayer-synonymous-with-worship

In this article, Staples strives to demonstrate that prayer to saints is not adoration (worship), and he uses the extremely weak argument that the term “I pray thee” is actually a prayer (entreaty) to the person addressed, even if it is another human!  He then refers to 1 Kings 2:20 as an example, where Bathsheba addresses her son, King Solomon, and asks a request of him, which begins with the words:

“I pray thee, say me not nay…” 

And she goes on to make her request of him.

But again, Staples considers this to be authentic prayer and says:

“There was never a question here of whether the King James Bible was presenting Bathsheba as adoring her son as God, or praying to him in a way that was forbidden.  It was not.  Nor are Catholics when we pray to saints.” (Emphasis in original)

Of course no one with the slightest bit of biblical understanding would say that Bathsheba was “adoring” her son in the same way she would adore God.  And her entreaty was not in the least a prayer in any biblical sense.  Staples is using a Catholic “straw man” argument here and it crashes and burns.

Notice he says above:

“… or praying to him in a way that was forbidden.” 

What?!!  The only thing that should be “forbidden” here is Staples trying to inject the idea of prayer in the context of 1 Kings 2:20.  He is trying to imply that there is a correct way to pray to a person, but the multitude of prayer examples in Scripture will not permit him to suggest praying to anyone but God!  He either doesn’t see it or he refuses to see it.  I suspect it is the latter.

Tim Staples goes on to say that “The Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to define the essential difference between prayer to God and prayer to saints.”  Yes, they have, but we can successfully sum it up much quicker: Prayer to God is biblical and prayer to saints is not.

Assumptions and Scripture Twisting

I think the whole point is that Catholics start out assuming that it is ok to pray to the dead because the Church encourages such prayer.

Tim Staples qualifies the practice of praying to saints and says:

“We certainly honor them when we pray to them.  In other words, we do not talk to them like we talk to the boys at the local bar and grill.  We show great respect and reverence for them.  But we do not adore them as we adore God alone.” (Emphasis in original) 

There is nothing wrong with giving honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone is far more than showing mere respect or simple human reverence.

Furthermore, he says:

“And we also petition them for their prayers because Scripture makes very clear that we need each other as members of the body of Christ.” (Emphasis in original) 

For this, he appeals to 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, which is about the diversity and necessity of everyone participating in the local body.  But the members of the body that the apostle Paul is referring to are the ones that are living.  Paul never implies that we need the help of those saints who have gone on before us.  There is no passage in all of Scripture to suggest this. 

Building a Case?

I’ve seen Catholics suggest that there is a cumulative, or collective, argument for prayer to Mary and the saints.  In other words, there is this long string of evidence for praying to these saints and it goes something like this:

1) Christians can help one another through their prayers.

2)   We are one body of believers (both dead and alive).

3) Some people’s prayers are stronger than others.

4) The saints are more alive now than they ever were (because they are in Heaven).

5) We have a “cloud of witnesses” in Heaven (Hebrews 12:1), and they pray for us.

6) In Revelation 6:9-10, there is intercession by those in Heaven for those on earth.

7) Mary had the closest relationship with Jesus, more than anyone.  So, her prayers must be the strongest.

Ok, so this is supposed to be a cumulative argument, but it just takes one weak link to collapse this whole line of thinking.

Weak Links in the Chain

So let’s break this down. 

1) Their first point is that Christians can help one another through their prayers.  Absolutely.  This is scriptural.  We have no problem with this idea.

2) Second, the assertion is that both living and dead Christians are part of the one body.  True, but we (the living) now have no more dealings with those who have gone on before us.  We will be re-united with them at our death (or the Rapture), but until then, there is no indication in the Bible that we can communicate with them or pray to them.

3) Third, yes, the prayers of some are more effective than those of others (James 5:16).  But there is nothing here at all about the prayers of the dead.

4) Those who have gone on before us (to Heaven) are more alive than they ever were before.  In a sense, that is true, but they are still in the category of “the dead” (Isaiah 26:19; Luke 20:37; Acts 23:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).  Just because they are “more alive than ever” doesn’t mean that we can pray to them or that they can communicate with us.  This gets dangerously close to necromancy (Deuteronomy 18:10-13).

5) The “cloud of witnesses” passage (Hebrews 12:1) is all about the Old Testament believers’ EXAMPLE OF FAITH to us.  This statement is a continuation of the context of Hebrews chapter 11.  The author’s point is NOT that they are now spectators, and that they are all watching what is happening to us on earth (although it is possible that God can allow them to).  But the whole point of the passage is that they are witnesses of the same message of faith and hope and that we should follow their lead (…let us [also] run with patience the race that is set before us – 12:1b); they encourage us as role models of the faith.  This is in no way a “proof” that those in Heaven are watching us.  And if they are watching us, so what?  We are never told in Scripture that they can pray for us.  It is another Catholic assumption.

6) Concerning the souls who cry out for vengeance on their enemies in Revelation 6, this is another weak attempt to “prove” that those in Heaven are watching us.  Maybe they are or maybe they aren’t, but it still doesn’t mean they should be prayed to.  This passage just means that they were waiting for retribution on their enemies.

7) Ok, Mary certainly had a close relationship with her Son, Jesus.  That’s obvious.  But it is an illogical leap to go from that idea to her being able to pray for us after her death, when there is absolutely no biblical evidence for that.

So this “cumulative argument,” this “long string of evidence for praying to saints” has several weak links within and therefore, collapses upon itself.  This does not prove that we can pray to Mary or the saints or that they are able to help us, or intercede for us.  But we do know living saints, here on earth can pray for each other (Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; Hebrews 13:18) and that Jesus, Himself, intercedes for us (Romans 8:34) and so does the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26).

Prayer – the Highest Form of Worship

Some pastors, like John MacArthur, believe that prayer is the highest form of worship.  I don’t agree with everything he says (e.g., his Calvinism), but I do agree with his view of prayer and worship:

“Godly prayer is worship, acknowledging His sovereign will and our utter dependence…”

“If prayer is anything, it is the highest form of worship that an individual can participate in, because prayer is saying, ‘God, Your name, Your kingdom, Your will be elevated, not my will, not my kingdom, not my name.’”

“True prayer is the distilled essence of worship…”

I certainly agree.

See his article here:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-447/prayer-the-highest-form-of-worship

Conclusion

The Catholic Church claims that there are three “levels” of prayer: Dulia (toward the “saints”), Hyperdulia (toward Mary) and Latria (toward God).  This is certainly not a biblical concept and it seems a little complicated.  For example, how do you know when you have crossed the line from dulia into hyperdulia?  Or from hyperdulia into latria?  It seems pretty subjective and dangerous to me.

Catholics may claim that they can “discern” the differences, yet they can’t see the utter absence of this type of prayer in the multitude of examples of acceptable prayer in Scripture.  In this way, they are much like the religious Pharisees in Jesus’ day, who would filter out a gnat, yet swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).  How could they miss something so obvious? 

If there were indeed examples of prayer to saints in Scripture, you can bet that the Catholic Church would be pointing to them.  This is very telling indeed.  The “elephant in the room” has always been the fact that there are NO EXAMPLES in the Bible of anyone (rightly) praying to anyone but God.

Catholic apologists tell us Protestants that we shouldn’t confuse worship and prayer.  But according to the Bible, it is obvious that the confusion is on their part.  Prayer is not just “asking” for something, or “conversing” with a lesser being.  Prayer is a form (possibly the highest form) of worship.  Both worship and prayer belong to God alone.

 

TIM STAPLES DEFENDS THE “PACHAMAMA POPE”

 

It was a couple of months ago that I posted an article on Pope Francis’ involvement in the Catholic Church’s Amazonian Synod that occurred back in October of 2019.  In that particular meeting, the pope presided in, what I believe can only be seen as acts of idolatry.  People were kneeling and bowing down to wooden objects that are identified by many as Pachamama idols.  On the Vatican grounds, there were a number of Amazonian Catholics who were bowing before, and presenting offerings to, these wooden fertility statues (statues of a naked, pregnant Amazonian woman).  Not only did the pope attend the ceremonies without objections, he even blessed one of the statues and put it on the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.  Much of the Catholic world was horrified.

And the head of the Catholic Church, the supposed “Vicar of Christ” and “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” was absolutely fine with all this.  This couldn’t possibly be a stumbling block, right? 

Catholic apologist, speaker, and Director of Catholic Answers Tim Staples weighed in on the Amazon Synod fiasco.  He seems to be surprised that anyone objected to all this.  What could possibly be wrong with a little homage to idols (which are demons) on the grounds of the Vatican and in St. Peter’s Basilica? 

But apparently, it wasn’t a big deal.  According to Staples, it was just an “imprudent application of the communion of saints.”  What is that supposed to mean?  How should all this have been “applied”?

See his article here:

https://timstaples.com/2019/pope-francis-commit-a-sin-of-idolatry-with-pachamama/

Tim calls this charge of idolatry against Pope Francis “absolutely unfounded.”  He quotes the Catholic Catechism and says that idolatry consists in “divinizing” what is not God.  He then goes on to point out that idolatry can be committed with power, pleasure, race, ancestors, etc., including money, and he quotes Jesus saying that we “cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24).

Of course this is true, but I think that most of us have never, ever seen anyone bow down and pray to their money.  My point is that if we can be guilty of idolatry toward our money (like the rich young ruler was – Luke 18:18-24) WITHOUT bowing down to it, then how much more is it idolatry for those who prostrate themselves before (and give offerings to) anyone or anything that is not God?  The pope is just as guilty for being a part of this.  So, no, Tim – this charge is not “absolutely unfounded.”

Tim says that he was unable to find reference to anyone there who considered Pachamama a goddess.  But if no one present at this meeting thought of her this way, then what was all that bowing, praying, and extreme devotion going on?  It seems that Tim thinks that since these people were “evangelized” (as Catholics), then that changes the meaning of what they were obviously doing (worshipping).  He thinks that they couldn’t possibly be idolizing, since they were “evangelized”!  Even his fellow Catholics sensed that something was seriously wrong with their “evangelization” process.

Tim claims that the Pachamama is just a “cultural symbol.”  But the Old Testament pagans no doubt thought the same thing of their own idols.  Would Tim be ok with cannibals going around killing and eating people, you know, since it was simply their “culture”?  I would hope not.  Simply being “cultural” does not make something right.

At one point, Tim goes on about Pachamama simply being a symbol of wisdom, fertility, and “new life.”  But what’s wrong with fertility and new life?  Nothing, but remember that it seems that in every pagan religion there is some kind of “mother earth goddess” that involves fertility and new life.  That’s exactly what’s wrong with this picture.  Tim should know better, but he is confusing (and conflating) biblical wisdom with pagan concepts of new life and fertility.  Tim is just muddying the water here with far-too-vague language.

Tim Staples then claims that “wisdom” is not a matter of only one interpretation.  There it is, folks.  The old “there’s more than one interpretation” argument.  This is just an excuse, and a weak one, at that.  This is exactly why we have, and need, Sola Scriptura (i.e., the Bible alone as the ultimate source for the church today). 

Not only was the pope’s involvement in all this a big enough insult to many Catholics worldwide, but Francis went a step further.  One year after this Amazonian Synod, on its anniversary, the Vatican Mint issued a coin depicting “Madre Terra” (Mother Earth, Pachamama). 

See here:

https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/another-nail-in-the-coffin-vatican-produces-pachamama-coin/

Rather than distancing itself from the Pachamama idol, the Vatican commemorates it with a new coin!  It shows that neither the Vatican nor the pope is repentant for what they are involved in.  Although the pope has the authority to stop all this, he is allowing and even promoting it.  Whatever happened to the fear of being a stumbling block (Matthew 18:6-7)?

This is something they could easily leave behind or put aside, but they don’t care that many of their own people are up in arms about this.  It seems that, right or wrong, it’s either the pope’s way or the highway!

Conclusion

How important is Pachamama to the pope?  Consider that, after these idols had been thrown into the Tiber River, he had people go down into the river to retrieve the idols.  To find them, it must have been like a needle in a haystack!  So surely, he has quite an investment in all this.  Very interesting.

In his “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation,” of 12-02-2020, Pope Francis is asking us to “enter into communion with the forest,” and then “our voices will easily blend with its own and become a prayer.” (Querida Amazonia, paragraph 56)

What kind of globalist, extreme environmentalist mumbo jumbo garbage is that?!  It looks like nature worship to me.

See the document here:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2020/02/12/200212c.html

If what the people were doing in the pictures we saw at the Amazonian Synod isn’t idolatry, then there is no such thing as idolatry!

Apparently, many Catholics do recognize at least some forms of idolatry when they see it.  Good for them.  But I have a question to all Catholics: Isn’t this what many Catholics across the world do when “venerating” Mary?  How is this any different than the idolatry of the Amazonian church?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIM STAPLES –MISSING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES

Most of our readers are probably familiar with the old adage, “He can’t see the forest for the trees.”  This is generally understood as overlooking or missing what you’re searching for, while that very thing is staring you right in the face!

This seems to be the case with Catholic apologist Tim Staples in a particular article he wrote.  Tim Staples is a mega-popular Catholic speaker and apologist who is very intelligent and articulate.  He is also the Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers.

Tim’s article that we refer to is titled “Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?” and it is attempting to refute the Protestant idea of “Sola Fide,” or “Faith Alone.”  The article can be found here:

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/online-edition/are-good-works-necessary-for-salvation

On to the Article

In his article, Tim quotes three passages that Protestants normally use to support the “Faith Alone” doctrine:

Romans 3:28 – “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

Romans 4:5 – “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteous.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

And then he says:

“On the surface, these texts may sound problematic, but once we examine their respective contexts, the problems go away rather quickly.”

No, sorry Tim, but the problems (for the Catholic) don’t just “go away.”  In fact, with these verses, the problems for the “faith plus works” doctrine are here to stay.  And yes, we absolutely agree that you should study the context; in fact, we insist!  Context is the key to understanding this issue.

The First Passage – Romans 3:28

Ok, so Tim first tackles the context of Romans 3:28 and says:

“St. Paul had already made very clear in Romans 2:6-7 that good works are necessary for eternal life, at least in one sense.  “For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…”

But notice that Tim actually jumps out of the context of Romans 3:28 here when he refers to Romans 2:6-7.  For starters, we must recognize that the context of Romans chapter 1 is about the guilt and sinfulness of the Gentiles, since they do not follow the dictates of their consciences, nor the laws that they know are right.  The context of Romans chapter 2 (including v. 6-7 that Tim used) is about how even the Jews stand guilty and condemned because, although the Law was given to them, they did not keep the Law either; thus indicating a universal condemnation of man, where NONE have been able to keep the Law as he should.  But starting at about Romans 3:19, the context changes, and Paul begins to give the solution, the antidote, to man’s sin problem.  In this new context, Paul relates how a man is justified, or made right with God, and explains again and again, that this happens through faith and it is apart from the merit of any work other than that of Jesus Christ on the cross.  And this continues through to the beginning of chapter 5.  It is a new context, different than that of 2:6-7.  Just because 2:6-7 happens to be nearby doesn’t mean that it is part of the same context.  So, appealing to the context of Romans 3:28 does not help Tim Staples’ argument at all; in fact, it backfires on him.

The Second Passage – Romans 4:5

Farther down, Tim addresses Romans 4:5.  He doesn’t get very far into the context, but admits that this passage is in the same context as the previous one (Romans 3:28).  In this case, he is absolutely right, but this doesn’t help him at all, since the context works against his argument, as we demonstrated just above.

The Third Passage – Ephesians 2:8-9

And toward the end of the article, Tim tells us that the context of Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the “initial grace of salvation or justification,” which is “entirely and absolutely unmerited.” 

 

We agree that it is speaking of justification and we agree that it is “entirely and absolutely unmerited.”  What we don’t agree with is the Catholic belief that after this “initial” response, that one can then start meriting his salvation with works!  We see Tim expressing this idea when he says:

“St. Paul is in no way eliminating works in any sense, to be necessary for salvation; he is simply pointing out what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years: there is nothing anyone can do before they enter into Christ that can justify them.  But once a person enters into Christ… it’s a whole new ballgame (see Phil. 4:13; Rom. 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9, etc.).”

First of all, none of the contexts of these verses he gives here at the end of this quote are about how to be justified.  So, these passages don’t help him.  Secondly, it is true that there is nothing (no works) one can do before he enters into Christ to be justified, but there is also nothing one can do to contribute to his salvation / justification AFTER he enters into Christ.  There is no “whole new ballgame” with works that now save.  From beginning to end, it is faith in Jesus’ work alone.  Ironically, Tim even quoted the verse that totally disproves his argument:

“Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?  Are you so foolish?  Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh…” (Galatians 3:2-3)

According to this verse, it is clear that there is no point in the Christian life that works will save.

In other words, Paul is telling the Galatians that they entered into Christ by faith apart from works; and that is exactly how they will CONTINUE in, and keep, their salvation.  They entered in through faith and they walk by faith.  Good works will certainly be there in the true Christian’s life, but if good works are ever done with the intent to achieve salvation through them, this is walking “in the flesh.” (Galatians 3:3)  Tim is missing what this verse is actually saying, and guilty of the proverbial “missing the forest for the trees.”

The Ultimate Justification Passage

It certainly seems that Catholics will always try to downplay Romans 3-5 when discussing justification, but we’re glad that Tim mentions Romans 3 in his article.  It is important because Romans chapter 3 through 5 is the longest continuous passage in all of Scripture that specifically deals with the doctrine of justification, or how a man is made right with God.  And over and over in this passage, Paul makes it obvious and presses the point that our salvation is apart from works.  This is the go-to passage for justification.  All other passages that mention justification or salvation revolve around this one.  To try and say otherwise is to turn this passage on its head.  One cannot use verses that simply mention justification, in passing, to override this main, clear, and dominant passage.

By the way, Catholics will often say that this passage is only dealing with works of the Mosaic Law.  But if this is true, then why is Abraham even mentioned in this context (Romans 4:1-3)?  Moses didn’t come along until about 430 years after Abraham (Galatians 3:16-17).  Until then, there was no Mosaic Law.  No, in the context of Romans 3-5, Paul was addressing the inadequacy of the works of those before the Mosaic Law (e.g., Abraham – Romans 4:1-3), those during the Mosaic Law (e.g., David – Romans 4:6), and those who came after the Mosaic Law (e.g., the Christians to whom he is writing the epistle of Romans).  So, Paul was dealing with any and all works.  None of them save.

James 2

And of course, like any good Catholic, Tim mentions James 2:24:  

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

But by this time, Tim seems to have forgotten his emphasis on context, since he ignores the context in James 2 in order to promote his works-based salvation.  As we’ve said many times, the context in James 2 is NOT “How is a man made right with God?” but rather, “How do we really know that one is a Christian?”  It is about the demonstration of one’s true faith by his works.  It is not faith apart from the presence of works, but faith apart from the merit of works.

One more insurmountable problem for those who believe in a works-based salvation is the fact that if works do determine a person’s salvation, then he would have to do those works and the whole Law perfectly in order to be saved (Galatians 3:10-11; 5:3; James 2:10).  But that’s just not possible (Acts 15:10).

Judgment Scenes

As stated earlier, Tim mentions Romans 2:6-7, and tries to imply here that Paul is speaking of a salvation by works.  But the apostle Paul is simply referring to the Judgment scene.  In biblical Judgment scenes (for example, Matthew 7:21-23; 16:24-27; 25:31-46; Romans 2:5-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc.) these scenes are speaking in general concerning those judged.  They are not specifically giving a list of things that would have caused a person to be saved.  Again, these scenarios are DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive – they are describing the type of people who are saved.  They are not prescribing a list of works for salvation. 

Yes, in the Judgment, God will give to every Christian according to his works.  But if salvation is by faith, then why is he judged according to his works?  Because his works are the demonstration and proof to everyone of the state of his soul.  No one will be able to say, “But God, I really DID have faith!  Why are you sending me to Hell?”  Because the person’s works will be the proof; his works are the evidence of what was already in his heart.  So, in the Judgment, the saved will be proven and exposed as true believers by their works, but they will not be saved by them.  The Judgment scene is never used as a “how to get saved” guide in Scripture.  

The Judaizers

In the article, Tim also mentioned the “Judaizer” heresy and says:

“Those attached to this sect taught belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved.  One had to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, in order to merit heaven.”

Yes, this was the basic belief of the Judaizers, but Paul’s anger toward the Judaizer heresy was not just because they were accepting Old Testament laws that were “passed away,” but because they were adding to the finished work of his Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross by accepting this “faith plus works” concept!  In essence, they were minimizing Christ’s suffering and work on the cross and saying that it was “just not enough”!  They must add something.  This is what provoked Paul to call this heresy “another gospel” and say that those preaching it were accursed (Galatians 1:8-9)!

Amazingly, Tim alludes to this same idea when he later says:

“When the ‘Judaizers’ were insisting a return to the Old Covenant was necessary for salvation, they were, in essence, saying Christ and the New Covenant are not enough.  And in so doing, they were ipso facto rejecting Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.”

 

Tim doesn’t realize that he is guilty of the same error as the Judaizers!  This is the “forest” that he cannot see staring him in the face!  The error of the Judaizers (and many today) is that they are guilty of adding ANY kind of work to the cross!  See this article on the Judaizers:

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

What About Works of the New Law?

Tim thinks that works done “in Christ,” or under the “new law,” can save, but works done “in Christ” are still… works… whether done “under grace” or not.  We should indeed strive to do good works with the right attitude, but the Bible never says that works mixed with the right attitude can save.

The apostle Paul, who also wrote the epistle to Titus, tells us that salvation is “Not by works of righteousness which we have done…” (Titus 3:5).  Let us ask some questions:  Is baptism a work of righteousness?  Indeed it is.  Is helping your neighbor a work of righteouness?  Giving to the poor?  Abstaining from greed, theft or sexual sin?  Following the Ten Commandments?  Absolutely.  These are all works of righteousness, but Titus 3:5 says these are NOT how we are saved.  And this lines up perfectly with Romans 3-5.

To prove the point, let’s look at Abraham.  Romans 4:9-11 clearly says that Abraham’s circumcision did NOT save or justify him.  But why?  Does anyone doubt that Abraham did his circumcision with the right attitude?  Was not his circumcision also a God-ordained work of obedience?  Of course it was.  Then why did his circumcision, his work of godly obedience, NOT save him?  Simply because it was a WORK, and Paul’s whole emphasis in Romans 3-5 is salvation by faith, apart from works.  Again, even works of righteousness cannot save, as we just saw in Titus 3:5.  

Conclusion

We want to make it absolutely clear that “Faith Alone” does not mean that Christians can or should avoid good works, since we are called to do them (Ephesians 2:10).  But we do them because we are already saved, and because we want to please God – we never do them to gain justification / salvation.  They will not bring us to Heaven, but they will bring us rewards once we are in Heaven.

In the Catholic view of salvation, there is room for boasting, but God will not allow it (Romans 3:27; 4:2; Ephesians 2:8-9).  That’s why the “faith plus works” doctrine is dangerous – it allows for pride.  It allows for one’s works to somehow contribute to his salvation.  It says, “Lord, You did Your 99%, and I did my 1%.  I earned my way (at least partially) through my works.”  But this is blasphemy. 

The “Faith Alone” doctrine strips man of his own accomplishments and will not allow him to boast in his righteous works.  It demands that he surrender to God and come to Him with empty hands.  It tells the Savior, “You, Lord, are the only one who gets credit for my salvation!”

So, we see in several places in his article that Tim actually walks directly over, stumbles upon, and crashes into, verses (and their contexts) that scream “Faith Alone” (i.e., salvation by faith apart from works).  But he just doesn’t see the forest for the trees.  But you see, Tim is a faithful Catholic, and “Mother Church” will not allow him to recognize the truths with which he is colliding.